Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Herriman staff recommends trimming 10-year CIP after park impact-fee shortfall
Summary
City staff told the Herriman City Council that revised revenue projections leave a roughly $10 million shortfall in park impact fees and a larger general-fund gap, and recommended delaying or redesigning several parks and capital projects rather than raising taxes; no formal adoption occurred tonight.
Herriman City staff presented a revised 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and recommended scaling back or redesigning multiple park projects after updating revenue projections that reduced expected park impact-fee receipts.
"We did revise the park impact fee over the 10 years down to 23,000,000, transportation impact to 31,000,000," Speaker 9, the staff presenter, told the council and said the general-capital fund lacks a dedicated revenue source and shows a projected negative balance beginning in 2026 unless changes are made.
The staff proposal trims or phases several projects. Mountain Ridge Park's immediate scope was described as a restroom, pavilion, sod and irrigation with an estimated cost of $1,500,000 while a later $3,400,000 phase is recommended for elimination. The History Park and Dancy Home project, previously estimated at about $4,400,000, was proposed to be funded at roughly $2.5 million from impact fees with pursuit of a TRCC grant and a redesigned scope to fit a reduced budget.
Jackson Park drew the most scrutiny: staff said the original design cost was about $8,000,000 and recommended funding roughly half and redesigning to match the budget. Council members debated priorities: Speaker 1 said the city must choose whether to build many modest parks or fewer, higher-quality amenitized parks for long-term value. "Do we want to build 30 half-assed parks? Do we want to build 10 really nice parks? Do we want to build 3 extraordinary parks?" Speaker 1 asked.
Council members and staff emphasized operations-and-maintenance (O&M) and long-term replacement costs. Speaker 4 said staff is beginning an inventory and asset-management effort to estimate maintenance needs and replacement cycles so future O&M obligations are visible in capital planning.
Staff warned that general-fund capital has a projected shortfall of roughly $30,000,000 over the 10-year model unless a dedicated funding source is identified or projects are cut. Options discussed included phased designs, use of year-end savings, interfund loans and seeking grants; staff said they are not asking the council to adopt changes tonight but wanted council input on priorities.
On timing and next steps, staff said they would return with more refined cost estimates, potential grant opportunities, and a proposed policy for project phasing and design-to-budget approaches. The presentation closed with staff asking the council whether they agreed with the suggested prioritization and whether staff should include these assumptions in the next biennial budget development.
No formal motion or vote on the CIP occurred during the meeting; staff framed the input as guidance for budgeting and asked the council for direction on trade-offs before any formal adoption.
